I think getting congressional authorization should have been done sooner, but better late than never.

__________________"Do you know how crappy your reputation is when even marinemom doesn't like you?" - Adolf Hitler"I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff" - Figatova"I think I actually heard 'America the Beautiful' playing in the background while I read your bit about the troops." - KennyThaKilla"The only racists are the Americans." - inevitab1e

I'm confused. What war powers does he want? Like does he want troops on the ground again? Iraq 3.0? Someone please explain.

Quote:

The proposed legislation Mr. Obama sent to Capitol Hill would impose a three-year limit on American action that has been conducted largely from the air and, while allowing Special Operations commandos and other limited missions, would rule out sustained, large-scale ground combat. It would also finally repeal the expansive 2002 congressional measure that authorized President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

I'm confused. What war powers does he want? Like does he want troops on the ground again? Iraq 3.0? Someone please explain.

Basically, he wants to continue to do what we are doing - bombing, and training local troops. But he wants Congress to pass a resolution authorizing this use of military force.

Technically, he is correct to do this. Our Constitution does not give a president the power to make war on other countries. It does, specifically, give that authority to the Congress. By getting this resolution, Obama is making this war legal under the Constitution. George Bush did the same thing before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were launched.

Our Constitution designates the President to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - effectively the top general of all the armed forces. It is he or she who must carry out our wars, but it is the Congress that is supposed to decide if we go to war or not. The Congress has the constitutional authority to do that. The president does not.

__________________"Do you know how crappy your reputation is when even marinemom doesn't like you?" - Adolf Hitler"I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff" - Figatova"I think I actually heard 'America the Beautiful' playing in the background while I read your bit about the troops." - KennyThaKilla"The only racists are the Americans." - inevitab1e

So airstrikes don't count as military force? I guess I'm still confused.

Yes, air strikes are a use of military force. If any country was sending its air force into our skies and dropping bombs, we would say that that country was at war with us. We would say that was an act of war against us because it would be.

What Obama is doing is making this use of force (war) (that he's already engaged in) legal under the Constitution by getting Congress to authorize it. Like I said, better late than never.

Edit: He never did this when he made war against Libya which is why I have always thought that was an illegal war.

__________________"Do you know how crappy your reputation is when even marinemom doesn't like you?" - Adolf Hitler"I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff" - Figatova"I think I actually heard 'America the Beautiful' playing in the background while I read your bit about the troops." - KennyThaKilla"The only racists are the Americans." - inevitab1e

So airstrikes don't count as military force? I guess I'm still confused.

Basically Obama is a Populist who needs everyone's approval so he can feel better about His inept presidency. Nah, jokes.

So the move is political in nature and also somewhat legally required. War Powers Act and the Joint Resolutions of September 14, 2001 allow the president to use military force against any terrorist group/individual/state or threat to the United States and The President is allowed to use this military force for a good while without congressional approval(I believe up to 60-120 days if you want to be technical about it) but after 9/11 clearly, a president can use military force indefinitely without congressional approval(ie declaration of war/support) and detain prisoners of war indefinitely as well. But before 9/11 it was 3 or 4 months the president could use military in conflict without congressional approval.

Congress has declared 11-17 war resolutions in its history. Without those 11-17 resolutions; Presidents have gone into conflicts over 140 times. So basically, it is just politics and technicalities in play with this ISIS war resolution.

__________________
Center-2015

Sic Semper Tyrannis

" i don't see practicing muslims as humans " - syszero(noxomous) - This quote actually happened unlike His. But both quotes seem extreme which is well in line for noxy's extremist tempo.

Yes, air strikes are a use of military force. If any country was sending its air force into our skies and dropping bombs, we would say that that country was at war with us. We would say that was an act of war against us because it would be.

What Obama is doing is making this use of force (war) (that he's already engaged in) legal under the Constitution by getting Congress to authorize it. Like I said, better late than never.

Edit: He never did this when he made war against Libya which is why I have always thought that was an illegal war.

Did the actual military force/action last more than 60 days in 2011 in Libya?

If so then we side-step to Joint Resolutions Sep. 14, 2001. lol

__________________
Center-2015

Sic Semper Tyrannis

" i don't see practicing muslims as humans " - syszero(noxomous) - This quote actually happened unlike His. But both quotes seem extreme which is well in line for noxy's extremist tempo.

Did the actual military force/action last more than 60 days in 2011 in Libya?

In the opening Purpose and Policy of the War Powers Act it says:

Quote:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

Quote:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

Quote:

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

None of those three circumstances applied when Obama attacked Libya. So the 60-day limitation does not apply. The War Powers Act says that there shall be a withdrawal of forces starting within 60 days if there is no declaration of war or specific authorization from Congress. But this was not intended to give the President the right to carry out war for 60 days against anybody for any reason (like because he didn't like Gadaffi's hair or something). It was intended to give the President the right to carry out war without congressional authorization for any one of the three reasons listed above only. It is sort of a popular myth that the War Powers Act gives the president the right to attack anyone carte blanche for 60 days. It's not true, though. It can only be for one of those three reasons, and none of them applied to Libya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladimir

If so then we side-step to Joint Resolutions Sep. 14, 2001. lol

I have read that resolution. It's stated intention was to go after the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It really doesn't apply to ISIS.

So, again, I do think a new congressional resolution is needed to legalize this latest Iraq War.

__________________"Do you know how crappy your reputation is when even marinemom doesn't like you?" - Adolf Hitler"I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff" - Figatova"I think I actually heard 'America the Beautiful' playing in the background while I read your bit about the troops." - KennyThaKilla"The only racists are the Americans." - inevitab1e

Basically Obama is a Populist who needs everyone's approval so he can feel better about His inept presidency. Nah, jokes.

So the move is political in nature and also somewhat legally required. War Powers Act and the Joint Resolutions of September 14, 2001 allow the president to use military force against any terrorist group/individual/state or threat to the United States and The President is allowed to use this military force for a good while without congressional approval(I believe up to 60-120 days if you want to be technical about it) but after 9/11 clearly, a president can use military force indefinitely without congressional approval(ie declaration of war/support) and detain prisoners of war indefinitely as well. But before 9/11 it was 3 or 4 months the president could use military in conflict without congressional approval.

Congress has declared 11-17 war resolutions in its history. Without those 11-17 resolutions; Presidents have gone into conflicts over 140 times. So basically, it is just politics and technicalities in play with this ISIS war resolution.

I'd say the president who wanted to limit the ability of President's to make war is caught in a quandry with the actual president who wants to make a lot of war but knows he was elected to stop war.

__________________If we mean to have heroes, statesmen and philosophers, we should have learned women.-Abigail Adams
this is not CNN or FOX (we're probably more accurate!)-LL HaydenSomeday I'll get my marxist utopia! -LL's GeorgeBushYeah but they're Moozlims. Kill 'em all! -WimblyIn other words it's always their fault for not voting Republican. - Wimbly